DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Sinclair v Lynch [2021] QDC 190
PARTIES:
BRUCE CHARLES SINCLAIR
(appellant)
v
GRAHAM PATRICK LYNCH
(respondent)
FILE NO:
2583/20
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Section 222 Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Wynnum Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
17 August 2021
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane District Court
HEARING DATE:
14 July 2021
JUDGE:
McGinness DCJ
ORDER:
1. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Magistrate is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PEACE AND GOOD BEHAVIOUR – appeal against making of a peace and good behaviour order – whether the Magistrate erred in law – whether the Magistrate erred by failing to make adequate findings of fact and law – whether the appellant’s behaviour amounted to a threat under s5(1) Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 – whether there was intentional conduct by the appellant directed at the complainant that caused the complainant to fear that the defendant will destroy or damage any property of the complainant under s5(2) Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982.
LEGISLATION:
Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 7
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222
CASES:
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 66
Harvey v Walker [2016] QDC 180
Laidlaw v Hulett [1998] 2 Qd R 45
COUNSEL: The appellant was self-represented.
No appearance by the respondent.
Introduction
Mr Sinclair appeals against an order made against him under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld) (the Act). The order was that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour towards Mr Lynch for a period of 12 months with an additional condition that Mr Sinclair is not to approach, enter or remain within 50 metres of Mr Sinclair or Mr Kennelly.[1]
[1]Peace and Good Behaviour Order – 03/09/2020.
Mr Sinclair and Mr Lynch were previously friends. At some stage the friendship soured. This was when Mr Lynch became friendly with a third male, Mr Kennelly, who was not Mr Sinclair’s friend.
In late 2019, Mr Lynch brought a complaint against Mr Sinclair seeking an order under the Act. An acting Magistrate, in his capacity as a justice, found the complaint was substantiated, summonsed Mr Sinclair, and the complaint proceeded to hearing before the Magistrates Court at Wynnum on 3 September 2020. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Magistrate made the order referred to above.
This appeal proceeds under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The appeal is by way of rehearing. This court must conduct a real review of the original hearing and the Magistrate’s decision and make its own determination on the evidence giving due deference and attaching significant weight to the Magistrate’s reasons. To succeed on appeal the appellant must establish some legal, factual, or discretionary error.[2]
[2] Laidlaw v Hulett [1998] 2 Qd R 45.
Relevant law
Before moving to the evidence, it is appropriate to consider the relevant sections of the Act.
Continue reading Sinclair v Lynch
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sinclair v Lynch [2021] QDC 190
- Case
- [2021] QDC 190
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the Magistrate's failure to provide reasons for the order constituted an error of law and whether the evidence presented supported the conclusion that the appellant's conduct amounted to a threat under section 5 of the Act. The Court noted that the Magistrate's decision lacked any articulated reasons for concluding that the appellant's conduct warranted a peace and good behaviour order. It was emphasised that a court hearing such applications must provide adequate reasons to support its decision, and the absence of such reasons in this case indicated an error of law.
The Court concluded that the Magistrate erred by not providing any reasons for his decision to grant the order. The appeal was allowed, and the order imposed by the Magistrate was set aside. The Court further noted that even assuming the evidence presented by Mr Lynch was credible, it was insufficient to warrant the granting of a good behaviour order under the Act, as it did not demonstrate that the appellant's conduct constituted a relevant threat. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Magistrate is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Mr Sinclair then submitted to the Magistrate that because Mr Lynch had already lied in court, what would stop him making false allegations in the future whilst he was under the good behaviour order. The Magistrate then added a further condition on the order that Mr Sinclair was not to approach within 50 metres of either Mr Lynch or Mr Kennelly.Consideration Unfortunately, the Magistrate’s decision is devoid of any reasons for concluding the making of an order was appropriate. There is merit in Mr Sinclair’s submission that the Magistrate failed to state findings of fact he had made, the law that he applied in reaching his decision and how he applied the relevant law to the facts as he found them to be. The Magistrate made no express findings in relation to the alleged incidents nor how the facts proved the elements under section 5 of the Act. The Magistrate should have made clear in his reasons how the evidence amounted to threats, or if not threats under section 5(1) of the Act, whether he was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Sinclair’s conduct was intentional and actually caused Mr Lynch fear of damage to Mr Lynch’s property under section 5(2) of the Act. It is not clear what evidence, if any, the Magistrate considered to determine a good behaviour order should be made. It is also not clear whether the Magistrate considered either limb of section 5 of the Act. What is undeniably clear is that the Magistrate has failed to give any reasons to support the exercise of his decision to impose an order for good behaviour. An error of law will have occurred when the court which hears and decides this type of application does not provide adequate reasons.[15] The constant challenge in a busy Magistrate’s court is to balance the need to administer justice expeditiously with the need to include reasons that support the Court’s decision. [15]See Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 66 and the cases referred to therein. I am satisfied the Magistrate erred by not providing any reasons for his decision to grant the order in the circumstances of the present case. Disposition of the appeal The appeal is allowed. I can either set aside the Magistrates order and order the matter be remitted back to the Magistrates Court for further hearing or I can attempt to determine the matter on the evidence before me. The order has now been in place for approximately 11 months. I have considered Mr Lynch’s evidence, and, even assuming his evidence to be credible and reliable as to the occasions Mr Sinclair abused him, as the Magistrate must have done, (even though he did not say so), I am unable to see how the Magistrate concluded, and I am unable to conclude, that the incidents of verbal abuse constituted a relevant threat to assault, or cause bodily injury to the complainant or anyone under his care, or to procure any other person to assault the complainant, or damage Mr Lynch’s property under section 5(1) of the Act. I am also not satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Sinclair’s intentional verbal abuse directed at Mr Lynch caused Mr Lynch to fear that Mr Sinclair would destroy or damage any of his property. It follows the evidence is insufficient to warrant the granting of a good behaviour order under legislation which is concerned with threatened assaults on persons or property.